ceb

From what I understand, the factory remote starter shuts the engine off as you unlock the door - requiring an engine restart with the key. In addition, the fob is huge and the range is poor.

I had the predecessor of the Viper (DEI) remote starter on my first Yukon in 1996. That keyfob started the car from 9 floors up and replaced the factory keyfob for locking and unlocking the door.

Once running, I could unlock the door remotely and the engine would shut down when I stepped on the brake unless I inserted the key and turned it to the "on" position prior to touching the brake pedal.

I'm sure that technology has advanced in the 16 years since my Yukon, but the OE solution seems like a very expensive step backwards.

ceb

Here are the installation instructions. Pg 23 provides the correct operations of the remote starter.

This is part of my "due diligence" process regarding any mods - research everything to death. In this case, I actually decided that I didn't really need a remote starter at all based on price, installation difficulty and expected use.

neuronbob

What a silly implementation. Shutting off the engine on unlocking the door doesn't seem like a good idea.

I understand the 2012s don't come with a spare tire. Is this available as an option? I strongly disagree with this movement toward no spares. I pop about a tire a year on average, and I don't like the idea of waiting for a tow truck to take me to a dealer, garage, whatever. Last time I had to wait two hours in a snowstorm for a tow truck because my car had no spare. Boooooo!

ceb

Right. The 2012's come with Acura's version of the Conti Mobility Kit - an electric pump combined with a bottle of slime. A spare is available as an accessory at some ridiculous cost ($800 IIRC)

BikingDerek

I have already elaborated in other threads.

The biggest issue for me is that you can not even unlock the car with the keyless entry fob if the engine has been started with the remote starter. It disables the key fob so you have to stop the engine with the (already mentioned) HUGE remote start fob, then unlock the car with the keyless entry fob.

They could at least let you unlock the car with the keyless entry and stop the engine at that time.

Amazing that US manufactures have had the ability to have a factory remote start be part of the keyless entry system, have the ability to unlock the car and keep the engine running for YEARS. They also disable the starter so you can't try to start the engine again if it is running.

Rant Off

neuronbob

Oh hell no, not again! I went through this with my CTS-V as well. It not only doesn't come with a spare, there is no option for one. A bunch of us on the Cadillac forums had to have spares fabbed up for our cars. $600 a set!

Is there room for a spare? I can't believe an OEM solution for this car would be that expensive. I was hoping this car would be a fuel efficient trip car for us.....I don't think having a valuable safety device like a spare missing is a good idea even if it improves mileage. Thought GM was the only one doing this, can't believe Honda/Acura would be pulling this too.

Maybe I can have my dealer find a leftover 2011.

ceb

BMW quit doing spares when they started doing runflats and no space for one. We have space for one.

neuronbob

I was at my usual dealer last night. I test drove a base TSX sedan in order to familiarize myself with the drivetrain setup. My initial impression that that the car moves quickly for its "anemic" engine was reinforced. I think the engine is anemic only on paper, that five gears is correct for this car, and that the engine and transmission are very nicely married.

When you are actually driving the car, it does not feel slow at all. I can understand those saying that they don't miss the power of their previous rides. I drove the car in about a ten mile loop including freeway and city streets. I had no trouble at all merging onto the freeway. I tried it once with the transmission in "D" and once with the paddle shifters and the transmission in "S". In "D", acceleration was smooth and brisk. With it in "S" and using the paddle shifters, acceleration was, understandably, brisker.

Engine noise has a nice low pitch at high rpms. It doesn't sound like a sewing machine like many other 4's I've had the displeasure of dealing with.

In short, I think I could live with this drivetrain.

So at this point the only question is whether I am willing to give up the V. It's proving to be a harder decision than I thought despite the clear economic argument for making a change. I may just pay off the V first, then relegate it to weekend duty. It's tough to be a car nut....

benben01

Before I picked up my TSX 6speed, I compared it with the TL-SH 6speed as well. Yes, the TL is a bit peppier but not enough to justify the $45K price tag and extra helping of gas. At the end, I opt'ed for the TSX 6speed for it's sportiness and frugalness on the gas. The 2.4 is surprisingly well matched for this car.

TSXy Luster

Did you try just leaving it in S and not shifting it while driving?

ceb

I agonized over this decision for a few months and kept waffling between a 535, a E350/550 and the TSX. The 535 dropped out early because of the tire/wheel issues. The E350 was a strong contender but I couldn't find one with leather, the appropriate colors and having the two (very basic) options I wanted.

The TSX was a logical choice offering the versatility of a wagon, the reliability of Honda, the basic features I was looking for (is wanting leather and xenons really that unreasonable?) and better gas mileage to boot.

Now, after a week of ownership, I must say that I don't regret the decision at all. In fact, I'm asking myself why I had 300 HP to begin with as I clearly wasn't using most of them. Today, speeding up to negotiate a merge was the first time that I thought to myself "the BMW would have done that with less fuss" but the TSX negotiated the merge nicely.

I appreciate the better nav (even if the graphics are much worse and the iDrive controller had a better placement,) the better audio and the better mileage.

About that sewing machine sound. I haven't noticed it in my car yet, but I noticed it in the 2010 loaner I had over the weekend that prompted my comment about the "sewing machine on steroids." I suspect that it was the mid cycle improvements combined with my not pushing my car yet that makes my car quieter at speed than the 2010.

I have zero regrets. The dealership is head and shoulders above any of the BMW dealers in the DC area even if they made a boneheaded mistake that inconvenienced me but cost them money.

neuronbob

I should have, but didn't. I wanted to try the paddles, as I actually make use of such devices, especially in bumper-to-bumper traffic where engine braking is useful.

neuronbob

I did a third test drive (my second in a wagon) today. I did just you suggested above. The S mode is TENACIOUS in holding gears. Once, the gear was held so long that I ended up shifting up on my own using the paddles. It's almost as if the sport mode is programmed for the track, like the sport mode in the Cadillac CTS-V is, and which displays similar behavior. I suppose that would be modified somewhat once I've driven for a while.

I keep thinking....I know I'm moving slower, but it sure doesn't feel like it.

Thanks for all your comments and help. Will be making a final decision on whether to buy soon.

TSXy Luster

Good luck!

ceb

My sentiments exactly. I keep trying to find situations where the TSX seems underpowered but they are pretty rare.

Ken1997TL

The only time I feel it is underpowered is on 6% grades on I-5. My RL never even downshifted at the same speeds, but then it had an extra liter of displacement. I enjoy the TSX's fuel economy as a good trade off.

neuronbob

Looks like it's not going to happen yet. Got a good price on a '12 wagon. However, the numbers don't work for me on the trade-in, a problem I was anticipating. Will consider paying off the V first or selling it myself, more likely the former.

Enjoy your wagons, folks!